Richard Dawkins, considered in most circles to be one of the great scientific minds of our time, has at various times exposed his true personality throughout the years in his many lectures, debates, and books that involve the question of the existence of God. For some bizarre reason, he and others who call themselves “The New Atheists” have a crusade to save humanity against the evil forces of religious belief. The above video is a simple but very telling example however, of not only the total lack of objectivity on the part of Dawkins but the complete lack of concern for the humanity he’s supposedly trying to unbrainwash. (Not that “unbrainwash is a word)

How do I draw this conclusion? Its very simple. As Ravi Zacharias points out in the video, Dawkins tells the multitudes to mock various religious beliefs with “contempt”, and to do so publicly. To him, these beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. Yet, as Ravi rightly states, Dawkins has no intention of going to Iran to mock their beliefs. Why is that I wonder? Because Dawkins, a man who claims, along with his “New Atheist” brethren, that all religions are equally destructive, knows full well that not all religions are equally destructive. Otherwise he’d accept the challenge. Dawkins, throughout nearly every debate he’s ever been a part of in regards to religion vs. science, has never been able to do much other than to make wild accusations, assumptions, and making sweeping generalizations, of which no one ever asks him to verify with any sort of logic or evidence. When you get past all the rhetoric and intelligent wordplay, he’s basically sticking his fingers in his ears while screaming “la la la you’re irrational”. Okay. But I’ll address some of his inconsistencies and flat out lies in another post. But for now, let’s compare what Dawkins is campaigning for to that of the person who responded to his nonsense in this video: Ravi Zacharias.

See, Ravi actually did, once upon a time, visit the middle east, in fact visited a sheik who was a notorious terrorist leader of the Hamas regime during Arafat’s reign. Ravi and he discussed various points of Christianity, and eventually when Ravi was leaving and attempting to get in his car, the sheik ran toward his car, embraced him, kissed him on both cheeks, and with tears in his eyes, said “You’re a good man, I hope to see you again some day”. That’s an Islamic terrorist, a murderer, who embraced a man who just rejected Islam on his own soil and professed Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But because of Ravi’s authenticity in his concern, compassion, and love for humanity, because of his desperation to see someone learn the truth, the sheik was moved tears. Could Dawkins have gotten that reaction? Is he even interested?

The problem with Dawkins is that he really could care less who believes in God. He’s not promoting science, or atheism, or secularism. He’s promoting Richard Dawkins. His anger is completely unjustified what’s more, because he falsely tried to attach some noble connotation to it. He claims that he nor anyone can’t do science objectively if they have to worry about miracles being “smuggled” into the equation. But John Lennox, a mathematician from Oxford whom Dawkins has debated twice, believes in the Bible word for word. Did the numbers change because he believes in God? No. Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist at M.I.T., believes in the Bible word for word, is he less of a scientist? Can Dawkins verify how the their science is negatively effected by their belief? If religion is so in the way of “progress”, how then do atheists like Dawkins reconciled over 135 million deaths at the hands of atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao? There are plenty of claims these New Atheists make that they have no interest in supporting, yet their entire campaign is to demand Christians account for and verify their own faith at every turn. But what we do know, what we can verify, is that Dawkins is an angry individual, but that anger has nothing to do with honor, nobility, truth, or any concern or love for the humanity he claims to try “free” from the religious belief.


This is a great little snippet from one of Lee Strobel’s television shows earlier this year, where Sam Harris, a member of the New Atheists group, is pushing his latest book, entitled “The End of Faith.” Hugh Hewitt is the other guest meant to somehow challenge Mr. Harris on the premise of his book.

First of all, the entire idea behind the New Atheists group is utterly preposterous, as its its core goal is to stamp religion and faith not only out of the public sector but to push what Sam Harris calls in this clip a “conversational intolerance” of religion. But unlike his counterpart Hugh, I don’t have a problem with this. Not at all. Bring it Sam. Why? Because his entire argument is that faith and the claims made by theists need to start being challenged publicly more and more so we can move beyond the dangers of religion as a civilized society. That’s great. Because a lot of the claims of Christianity are easy to demonstrate, or at least support. What isn’t easy to demonstrate, in fact could be impossible, are a lot of the claims made by Sam and those of his ilk. For example:

1. Sam claims that there is no evidence that a personal God wrote any of our books. That’s true, and Christianity doesn’t claim that God wrote them either. Christianity claims that the Bible is inspired by God.
2. Sam accuses religion, as having justified cruelty that rational people would otherwise not justify without religion. But not all religion justifies cruelty, and even in some cases where Christianity in particular is accused of justifying “cruelty”, its a subjective view of what is “cruel”. That is the claim that militant atheists like Sam refuse to acknowledge in their zeal to get theists to justify their own beliefs.
3. Sam falsely claims that while Christianity has progressed over the decades and over the centuries from beyond things like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, that the only reason we’ve progressed is not because of faith or religion, but because of scientific and social progressiveness. This is patently false and totally unsubstantiated. First of all, he assumes without evidence that science can progress, social interaction can progress, but understanding of religion is never allowed to improve. In other words, Christians are incapable of coming to a better understanding of their faith in Christ, and are not allowed to improve on that knowledge, but scientists and sociologists are allowed to come to better understandings of the world around them. This is so flabbergastingly nonsensical and devoid of any basis in fact its a wonder smarter people haven’t challenged Sam Harris on this before. He then contradicts himself when he asks why there aren’t suicide Christian, Palestinian bombers. That’s the point Sam. All religions are NOT the same, not all faith is destructive, and not all theists promote beliefs that get people unjustifiably killed. I couldn’t have made the point better myself. So even atheists like Sam can see the difference between a faith like Islam and a faith like Christianity, yet he lumps all theism into one pot and wants to boil the faith right out of it, assuming that if religion is removed, that man will have no reason to harm man.

So in the end, while guys like Sam Harris write entire books about how theists need to be challenged more to demonstrate their claims, they are making sweeping, blatant, wild generalizations, speculations, and pushing theories that have no basis in fact, which is why no facts are given to support their views. That is why I’m all for the “conversational intolerance” that he speaks of, because it will put militant atheists like himself in the uncomfortable position of proving their own speculations.

Hitchens vs. Dinesh

Posted: May 16, 2013 in Uncategorized

A long debate, but worth the look of you have the time. Obviously it touches on a number if issues and questions in regards to the debate over the existence of God, but I’ll focus on only one here.

At about 1:13:00 Hitchens is railing away at how we as humans should not claim to “know” why we are here as humans or how “it” all began. Its good he acknowledges that its a very good and very important question, but that the question should remain open, the questions “sharpened”, and all the infinite possibilities explored. Well, there are some issues with that:

1. He and most of his atheist crusaders, while claiming that we can’t “know” yet the true meaning of our own existence, have rejected literally every explanation that doesn’t deal in the scientific realm of possibilities.
2. If we can’t “know”, than rejecting any possibility as irrational, not just religious explanation but ANY explanation, is just as fallacious as claiming to “know”.

The first issue is an issue for simple reasons: the true meaning of our existence can’t be quantified in scientific terms, because to answer that question one must go beyond the “beginning”, if any, and science can’t do that. Ever. Science is the study of the natural, observable world we live in and whether you believe in a big bang, or some other mechanism, science can’t look beyond the formation of the natural order.

The second issue is the problem with most atheist crusaders. They claim to have a lock on what makes a belief “rational” without ever demonstrating what makes a belief rational or irrational. They simply chant over and over again that Christianity and all other forms of religion are irrational. But the fact remains, in their worldview built supposedly on verifiable, empirical evidence, they have none to validate their accusation that belief in a Creator, which is obvious to 2/3ds of the world’s population, is irrational.

So Hitchens is right, we can’t “know” in the factual sense why we are here. But the Christian explanation, built on the completely logical conclusion that the natural order had a beginning and that life cannot be formed from nonlife, coupled with the verifiable evidence that supports the reliability of the Bible, is still far better an explanation than the ultimate idea that there is no reason why we are here, we just are. Unfortunately for atheists like Hitchens, since they reject all “unscientific” explanations to a question that can’t be answered by science, that is the only answer left for them.

This video actually has been posted in 4 different parts, feel free to look up the other 3. Its a ridiculous “debate”, as a scientist and a “skeptic” (I guess that makes him smart) try to explain to a nuclear physicist from MIT and one of the smartest apologists on the planet that their belief in God is irrational.

Funny thing though, they never actually demonstrate how the belief in God is irrational. I thought skeptics were all about empirical evidence when debating logic and reason? They agree in the video that over 2/3’s of the world’s population agree on the consensus of an intelligent creator, if not the identity. So 2/3’s of the world are irrational, or have at least one irrational belief? And as the video demonstrates, many of that population work in the same field/fields as those who are “skeptical”, having the same level of intelligence?

The fact is, most skeptics who debate these sort of things are forced repeatedly to concede that science is incapable of proving/disproving the existence of a God, yet when they argue against that existence, its always based on scientific theory or lack thereof. Its hysterical how they carved themselves a comfortable little niche: demand natural evidence of the supernatural, knowing that if such evidence existed that it would make the evidence natural by default, not supernatural. So circular reasoning wins the day for the skeptics again.